THE EFL wanted to relegate Sheffield Wednesday — but bungled how they handled the case.
An explosive report by an independent disciplinary commission explains why the Owls escaped with a Financial Fair Play penalty that was suspended to next season.
Sheffield Wednesday survived at Charlton's expenseCredit: Getty Images - Getty
It went against the EFL’s push for a full 12 points to be stripped from Wednesday for going £18million above their limit during a three-year period.
Such a punishment would have put Wednesday in the Championship’s bottom three and saved Charlton from the drop.
Instead the IDC panel let off the Owls because the EFL took too long to bring charges — as well as pursuing the wrong case first.
The governing body initially wanted Wednesday officials to be sanctioned for their part in owner Dejphon Chansiri buying the Hillsborough stadium.
That case was dismissed and by the time their focus turned to the FFP offence, it was too late for them to handle it quickly.
The report said the penalty for the first breach should have been imposed before the end of the 2018-19 season. However, that would not have sent the club down in that campaign — so the EFL went after them in the season just ended.
Football chiefs also revealed they planned to dock points from Derby if they are found guilty of a similar offence and apply that penalty next season too.
INCONSISTENCY
The inconsistency in the EFL’s punishments has also been hammered in the report, which will be published tomorrow.
The commission felt the eventual Wednesday hearing was held so late, it would have been unfair to dock them points this season.
It said: “If the penalty had been applied at a very much earlier stage, the club would have had the opportunity to improve its position by performance. Because of the delayed hearing it will have been deprived of that opportunity.
“The evidence indicates that the club resumed with a reduced squad as some players would not play beyond June 30, leading to an under-strength team.
THE EFL wanted to relegate Sheffield Wednesday — but bungled how they handled the case.
An explosive report by an independent disciplinary commission explains why the Owls escaped with a Financial Fair Play penalty that was suspended to next season.
Sheffield Wednesday survived at Charlton's expenseCredit: Getty Images - Getty
It went against the EFL’s push for a full 12 points to be stripped from Wednesday for going £18million above their limit during a three-year period.
Such a punishment would have put Wednesday in the Championship’s bottom three and saved Charlton from the drop.
Instead the IDC panel let off the Owls because the EFL took too long to bring charges — as well as pursuing the wrong case first.
The governing body initially wanted Wednesday officials to be sanctioned for their part in owner Dejphon Chansiri buying the Hillsborough stadium.
That case was dismissed and by the time their focus turned to the FFP offence, it was too late for them to handle it quickly.
The report said the penalty for the first breach should have been imposed before the end of the 2018-19 season. However, that would not have sent the club down in that campaign — so the EFL went after them in the season just ended.
Football chiefs also revealed they planned to dock points from Derby if they are found guilty of a similar offence and apply that penalty next season too.
INCONSISTENCY
The inconsistency in the EFL’s punishments has also been hammered in the report, which will be published tomorrow.
The commission felt the eventual Wednesday hearing was held so late, it would have been unfair to dock them points this season.
It said: “If the penalty had been applied at a very much earlier stage, the club would have had the opportunity to improve its position by performance. Because of the delayed hearing it will have been deprived of that opportunity.
“The evidence indicates that the club resumed with a reduced squad as some players would not play beyond June 30, leading to an under-strength team.
THE EFL wanted to relegate Sheffield Wednesday — but bungled how they handled the case.
An explosive report by an independent disciplinary commission explains why the Owls escaped with a Financial Fair Play penalty that was suspended to next season.
Sheffield Wednesday survived at Charlton's expenseCredit: Getty Images - Getty
It went against the EFL’s push for a full 12 points to be stripped from Wednesday for going £18million above their limit during a three-year period.
Such a punishment would have put Wednesday in the Championship’s bottom three and saved Charlton from the drop.
Instead the IDC panel let off the Owls because the EFL took too long to bring charges — as well as pursuing the wrong case first.
The governing body initially wanted Wednesday officials to be sanctioned for their part in owner Dejphon Chansiri buying the Hillsborough stadium.
That case was dismissed and by the time their focus turned to the FFP offence, it was too late for them to handle it quickly.
The report said the penalty for the first breach should have been imposed before the end of the 2018-19 season. However, that would not have sent the club down in that campaign — so the EFL went after them in the season just ended.
Football chiefs also revealed they planned to dock points from Derby if they are found guilty of a similar offence and apply that penalty next season too.
INCONSISTENCY
The inconsistency in the EFL’s punishments has also been hammered in the report, which will be published tomorrow.
The commission felt the eventual Wednesday hearing was held so late, it would have been unfair to dock them points this season.
It said: “If the penalty had been applied at a very much earlier stage, the club would have had the opportunity to improve its position by performance. Because of the delayed hearing it will have been deprived of that opportunity.
“The evidence indicates that the club resumed with a reduced squad as some players would not play beyond June 30, leading to an under-strength team.
All totally irrelevant to when a points deduction could've been applied. If they've been found guilty then why should they be afforded the right to be able to pick enough points not to be relegated at someone else's expense. Nothing to do with the season being concluded as the EFL would have us believe.
Yes, they had an under strength squad after June 30th, as did us and Hull (who lost their players before the 30th June), another total irrelevance.
Two completely spurious points in that report of the Independent Disciplinary Committee's findings:
1. first, the statement that "the case [against the Wednesday officials] was dismissed and by the time their focus turned to the FFP offence, it was too late for them to handle it quickly." Given the enormous factual overlap, the key findings of fact as to the existence of an offence by the club could have been reached at the outset. In any event, there was no excuse for deferring the FFP hearing until June; and
2. second, it is utter nonsense to suggest that:
“If the penalty had been applied at a very much earlier stage, the club would have had the opportunity to improve its position by performance. Because of the delayed hearing it will have been deprived of that opportunity.
“The evidence indicates that the club resumed with a reduced squad as some players would not play beyond June 30, leading to an under-strength team."
Absolute bollocks. How on earth could Wednesday have improved its position - by trying a little harder to win games ? They were not the only club fielding an under strength team, as we well know to our ultimate cost. Those remarks betray a total lack of understanding on the part of the Disciplinary Commission but I expect there is enough of an embarrassment factor for the EFL to keep their heads down and leave us to our fate. Plus - and perhaps more to the point - they need to keep SkyBet and their other sponsors sweet and avoid any unpleasantness or disruption to the fixture list and TV schedules.
A disgraceful shambles. They EFL should charge themselves with bringing the game into disrepute.
The latter is absolute nonsense. They knew they had been charged in November, they knew they could have up to a 21 point deduction. Now the argument is that they should have been given an opportunity to try harder, when they knew all along that 12 pets was probably the minimum.
The latter is absolute nonsense. They knew they had been charged in November, they knew they could have up to a 21 point deduction. Now the argument is that they should have been given an opportunity to try harder, when they knew all along that 12 pets was probably the minimum.
And if I knew they were guilty, they must have known.
The EFL screw us over with this and then block our attempts to rebuild by restricting us from bringing in players.
Their incompetence and actions (or more lack of efficient action) have cost us millions and put our club on the brink. We should protest at the EFL offices next.
An unbelievable level of incompetence from the EFL.
I can't put into words what I feel about this revelation.
My one and only thought at this moment in time is can we sue this not fit for purpose organisation ?
Surely we have enough legal eyed fans amongst us to bring a private case against the EFL on behalf of CAST or whoever. The economic fall-out will go on for years, affecting both the playing side and community charity work.
Amazed how this has slipped under the radar , and received very little attention outside of the clubs involved!
It’s an absolute travesty that we have been effectively punished for this - and I’m amazed (although not surprised) that the EFL haven’t tried to rectify the ruling!
Their bungled attempt at getting justice for their league teams has meant a total injustice for Charlton!
Action Needs to Be taken ASAP, although I fear no one will bother now
Amazed how this has slipped under the radar , and received very little attention outside of the clubs involved!
It’s an absolute travesty that we have been effectively punished for this - and I’m amazed (although not surprised) that the EFL haven’t tried to rectify the ruling!
Their bungled attempt at getting justice for their league teams has meant a total injustice for Charlton!
Action Needs to Be taken ASAP, although I fear no one will bother now
You will probably have seen posts from me before questioning when the IDC reasons for the Sheff Weds decision would be forthcoming.
The reason being - that the IDC recommendation to the EFL is one that it is not binding on the EFL to accept without challenge.
At the time that the IDC recommended sanction was announced (on the day before the Cup Final) the EFL in the person of its chairman Rick Parry stated that the EFL would await to see the decision making process by which the IDC reached their decision before coming to any conclusions.
Those decisions have now been announced (and the decision to defer the points penalty to next season on the grounds that Sheff Weds if penalised this season would not have had the opportunity (this opportunity effectively to utilise the profits and advantages gained by cheating) to catch up the 12 points -- is quite staggeringly breathtaking.
I would expect the EFL (as they did in the Macclesfield case) to convene early next week and take advice on appealing the IDC decision given the spurious nature of the reasons provided by the IDC in arriving at their recommendation.
Having previously thought this can't get as far as a civil law case I now think it could and it could certainly I believe be considered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport because the IDC reason for deferring to next season is so blatantly unfair and so heavily weighted in the transgressor's favour (Sheff Wed) rather than the innocent party (Charlton Athletic) that even natural justice is, in this case, being seen not to be done.
Having awaited two weeks to see the reasons provided for the deferral I am shocked that the IDC have not constructed something more robust to defend their position - this is a level of incompetence beyond that which anyone could imagine from an Independent Commission and the EFL should act swiftly to get back control of the situation.
Anything other than an EFL appeal must surely see Rick Parry resign as Chair.
Amazed how this has slipped under the radar , and received very little attention outside of the clubs involved!
It’s an absolute travesty that we have been effectively punished for this - and I’m amazed (although not surprised) that the EFL haven’t tried to rectify the ruling!
Their bungled attempt at getting justice for their league teams has meant a total injustice for Charlton!
Action Needs to Be taken ASAP, although I fear no one will bother now
You will probably have seen posts from me before questioning when the IDC reasons for the Sheff Weds decision would be forthcoming.
The reason being - that the IDC recommendation to the EFL is one that it is not binding on the EFL to accept without challenge.
At the time that the IDC recommended sanction was announced (on the day before the Cup Final) the EFL in the person of its chairman Rick Parry stated that the EFL would await to see the decision making process by which the IDC reached their decision before coming to any conclusions.
Those decisions have now been announced (and the decision to defer the points penalty to next season on the grounds that Sheff Weds if penalised this season would not have had the opportunity (this opportunity effectively to utilise the profits and advantages gained by cheating) to catch up the 12 points -- is quite staggeringly breathtaking.
I would expect the EFL (as they did in the Macclesfield case) to convene early next week and take advice on appealing the IDC decision given the spurious nature of the reasons provided by the IDC in arriving at their recommendation.
Having previously thought this can't get as far as a civil law case I now think it could and it could certainly I believe be considered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport because the IDC reason for deferring to next season is so blatantly unfair and so heavily weighted in the transgressor's favour (Sheff Wed) rather than the innocent party (Charlton Athletic) that even natural justice is, in this case, being seen not to be done.
Having awaited two weeks to see the reasons provided for the deferral I am shocked that the IDC have not constructed something more robust to defend their position - this is a level of incompetence beyond that which anyone could imagine from an Independent Commission and the EFL should act swiftly to get back control of the situation.
Anything other than an EFL appeal must surely see Rick Parry resign as Chair.
They do have a choice, and that is not to relegate us or Wigan and have two extra relegation places next season with both Wigan and Wednesday and possibly Derby starting on -12 points.
Derby will probably be the season after next knowing the EFL.
This would not I suspect form part of an EFL appeal but others have pointed out that this season Sheffield Weds profited (or certainly were able to utilise to their advantage) player resources which may not have been available to them (or may have been only partly available) had they been operating within the profit and sustainability rules applying to the Championship.
Sheffield Weds took 6 points from Charlton Athletic this season. Whilst there is no way of knowing whether results would have been different of course, it is nevertheless significant (given that Charlton were relegated) that the following players signed by Sheffield Wednesday for the 2019/20 season (i.e. this season) took all or some part in these two games:
1 Dominic Iorfa signed July 1st 2019 (played in the game at The Valley) 2 Julian Borner signed July 1st 2019 (played in the game at Hillsborough) 3 Mo Odubego signed July 11th 2019 (played in the game at Hillsborough) 4 Massimo Luongo signed August 8th 2019 (played in the game at Hillsborough) 5 Kadeem Harris signed July 13th 2019 (played in the game at The Valley and Hillsborough) 6 Alessio Da Cruz signed Jan 29th 2020 (played in the game at The Valley)
Could SW have financed the signing and wages of those 6 players or would they have been in a position to had they not evaded FFP rules coming into season 2019/20?
I repeat my point from earlier posting
The cheating club have effectively been rewarded for cheating by the penalty not being applied this season and thus escaping relegation at the expense of the innocent club, who, by way of contrast have been penalised by staying within the rules but being subjected to relegation by the SW sanction not being applied.
Finally, the IDC said it would have been unfair on SW had they not have been given enough time/games to save themselves had the penalty been applied this season.
ERRRRRRRRRRR.............so how is that somehow fair on Charlton, who hadn't broken the rules - who came up against a team (twice) which it transpires had benefited from breaking them, and who were relegated when it should so obviously have been the guilty transgressors who went down instead.
In what world other than the bizarre and twisted minds of the IDC does this make any kind of sense?
And if the EFL accept it without question then that is the final straw................
Yes, it is a cop out. Something a stable club could really have a go at. Maybe not to get our place back but to get compensation. Would rather this is done by new owners for obvious reasons. I recall West Ham had to pay Sheffield United millions.
It was £6 million. A drop in the ocean compared to what we "lost". Then we appointed Bryan Robson as manger..................FFS
Another panel, arbitrating on the 12-point sanction levied on Sheffield Wednesday for breaching profit and sustainability rules (P&S), is critical of the EFL’s investigation into overspending at the Hillsborough club and the league’s decision to add a secondary charge of a breach of good faith, which was ultimately dismissed.
The panel cites the timeliness of the investigation and the complications added by a second charge for the decision to deduct points from Wednesday not in the season just gone but the next one, a move that kept the Owls in the Championship at the expense of Charlton. “It [would have been] inappropriate to impose the deduction in the current extended season,” the document says, “but to postpone its effect until next season when the onus will be on the club to redeem its position on the playing field.”
In its findings, however, the panel found that Wednesday officials had backdated signatures on key documents regarding the sale of Hillsborough from the club to its owner, Dejphon Chansiri, including documents regarding the valuation of the deal itself. The changing of the dates meant that Wednesday passed P&S tests they would otherwise have failed.
So basically......" you cheated but we are now giving you enough time (a whole season) to be able to make up the 12 points & you also now have 2 months in which you can sign players to do just that"
FFS !!!
More emails to the EFL tomorrow (on their special form of course) demanding that they appeal this IMMEDIATELY.
So basically......" you cheated but we are now giving you enough time (a whole season) to be able to make up the 12 points & you also now have 2 months in which you can sign players to do just that"
FFS !!!
More emails to the EFL tomorrow (on their special form of course) demanding that they appeal this IMMEDIATELY.
Yes, you have cheated but we want to give you a chance to escape punishment. It's only fair!
The EFL wanted to apply Sheffield Wednesday's 12-point deduction to the 2019-20 season, but was not able to do so because it also pursued a charge against the club that it had deliberately concealed information around its ground sale, which was subsequently dismissed.
I hope TS sues the arse out of the EFL after he takes over
The EFL wanted to apply Sheffield Wednesday's 12-point deduction to the 2019-20 season, but was not able to do so because it also pursued a charge against the club that it had deliberately concealed information around its ground sale, which was subsequently dismissed.
I hope TS sues the arse out of the EFL after he takes over
But...why was that dismissed? They backdated the payments. They DID conceal information???
Regardless, it looks like the EFL pursued charges that would have made no difference (9 points was enough to relegate them, so the added points for anything more were unnecessary) and the delay that caused has meant the 12 point penalty that was ultimately applied would not be applied this season.
How can they allow that to factor into their decision?
Whether the Wednesday team would respond to a deduction positively or not is moot! It has nothing to do with whether the punishment should be applied or not.
I'm absolutely baffled.
And this is supposed to be fair on Wednesday, why is the focus on being fair to the team that BROKE THE RULES? What about the team that is now relegated?
Comments
Means I'll ignore it as a load of rubbish then
Yes, they had an under strength squad after June 30th, as did us and Hull (who lost their players before the 30th June), another total irrelevance.
Still, it's Alan Nixon so probably all rubbish.
1. first, the statement that "the case [against the Wednesday officials] was dismissed and by the time their focus turned to the FFP offence, it was too late for them to handle it quickly." Given the enormous factual overlap, the key findings of fact as to the existence of an offence by the club could have been reached at the outset. In any event, there was no excuse for deferring the FFP hearing until June; and
2. second, it is utter nonsense to suggest that:
“If the penalty had been applied at a very much earlier stage, the club would have had the opportunity to improve its position by performance. Because of the delayed hearing it will have been deprived of that opportunity.
Absolute bollocks. How on earth could Wednesday have improved its position - by trying a little harder to win games ? They were not the only club fielding an under strength team, as we well know to our ultimate cost. Those remarks betray a total lack of understanding on the part of the Disciplinary Commission but I expect there is enough of an embarrassment factor for the EFL to keep their heads down and leave us to our fate. Plus - and perhaps more to the point - they need to keep SkyBet and their other sponsors sweet and avoid any unpleasantness or disruption to the fixture list and TV schedules.
A disgraceful shambles. They EFL should charge themselves with bringing the game into disrepute.
Their incompetence and actions (or more lack of efficient action) have cost us millions and put our club on the brink. We should protest at the EFL offices next.
I can't put into words what I feel about this revelation.
My one and only thought at this moment in time is can we sue this not fit for purpose organisation ?
The reason being - that the IDC recommendation to the EFL is one that it is not binding on the EFL to accept without challenge.
At the time that the IDC recommended sanction was announced (on the day before the Cup Final) the EFL in the person of its chairman Rick Parry stated that the EFL would await to see the decision making process by which the IDC reached their decision before coming to any conclusions.
Those decisions have now been announced (and the decision to defer the points penalty to next season on the grounds that Sheff Weds if penalised this season would not have had the opportunity (this opportunity effectively to utilise the profits and advantages gained by cheating)
to catch up the 12 points -- is quite staggeringly breathtaking.
I would expect the EFL (as they did in the Macclesfield case) to convene early next week and take advice on appealing the IDC decision given the spurious nature of the reasons provided by the IDC in arriving at their recommendation.
Having previously thought this can't get as far as a civil law case I now think it could and it could certainly I believe be considered by the Court of Arbitration for Sport because the IDC reason for deferring to next season is so blatantly unfair and so heavily weighted in the transgressor's favour (Sheff Wed) rather than the innocent party (Charlton Athletic) that even natural justice is, in this case, being seen not to be done.
Having awaited two weeks to see the reasons provided for the deferral I am shocked that the IDC have not constructed something more robust to defend their position - this is a level of incompetence beyond that which anyone could imagine from an Independent Commission and the EFL should act swiftly to get back control of the situation.
Anything other than an EFL appeal must surely see Rick Parry resign as Chair.
Sheffield Weds took 6 points from Charlton Athletic this season. Whilst there is no way of knowing whether results would have been different of course, it is nevertheless significant (given that Charlton were relegated) that the following players signed by Sheffield Wednesday for the 2019/20 season (i.e. this season) took all or some part in these two games:
1 Dominic Iorfa signed July 1st 2019 (played in the game at The Valley)
2 Julian Borner signed July 1st 2019 (played in the game at Hillsborough)
3 Mo Odubego signed July 11th 2019 (played in the game at Hillsborough)
4 Massimo Luongo signed August 8th 2019 (played in the game at Hillsborough)
5 Kadeem Harris signed July 13th 2019 (played in the game at The Valley and Hillsborough)
6 Alessio Da Cruz signed Jan 29th 2020 (played in the game at The Valley)
Could SW have financed the signing and wages of those 6 players or would they have been in a position to had they not evaded FFP rules coming into season 2019/20?
I repeat my point from earlier posting
The cheating club have effectively been rewarded for cheating by the penalty not being applied this season and thus escaping relegation at the expense of the innocent club, who, by way of contrast have been penalised by staying within the rules but being subjected to relegation by the SW sanction not being applied.
Finally, the IDC said it would have been unfair on SW had they not have been given enough time/games to save themselves had the penalty been applied this season.
ERRRRRRRRRRR.............so how is that somehow fair on Charlton, who hadn't broken the rules - who came up against a team (twice) which it transpires had benefited from breaking them, and who were relegated
when it should so obviously have been the guilty transgressors who went down instead.
In what world other than the bizarre and twisted minds of the IDC does this make any kind of sense?
And if the EFL accept it without question then that is the final straw................
Another panel, arbitrating on the 12-point sanction levied on Sheffield Wednesday for breaching profit and sustainability rules (P&S), is critical of the EFL’s investigation into overspending at the Hillsborough club and the league’s decision to add a secondary charge of a breach of good faith, which was ultimately dismissed.
The panel cites the timeliness of the investigation and the complications added by a second charge for the decision to deduct points from Wednesday not in the season just gone but the next one, a move that kept the Owls in the Championship at the expense of Charlton. “It [would have been] inappropriate to impose the deduction in the current extended season,” the document says, “but to postpone its effect until next season when the onus will be on the club to redeem its position on the playing field.”
In its findings, however, the panel found that Wednesday officials had backdated signatures on key documents regarding the sale of Hillsborough from the club to its owner, Dejphon Chansiri, including documents regarding the valuation of the deal itself. The changing of the dates meant that Wednesday passed P&S tests they would otherwise have failed.
FFS !!!
More emails to the EFL tomorrow (on their special form of course) demanding that they appeal this IMMEDIATELY.
Confirmed on the BBC
The EFL wanted to apply Sheffield Wednesday's 12-point deduction to the 2019-20 season, but was not able to do so because it also pursued a charge against the club that it had deliberately concealed information around its ground sale, which was subsequently dismissed.
I hope TS sues the arse out of the EFL after he takes over
Michael Vaughan
David Blunkett
Regardless, it looks like the EFL pursued charges that would have made no difference (9 points was enough to relegate them, so the added points for anything more were unnecessary) and the delay that caused has meant the 12 point penalty that was ultimately applied would not be applied this season.
Utter disgrace.
Whether the Wednesday team would respond to a deduction positively or not is moot! It has nothing to do with whether the punishment should be applied or not.
I'm absolutely baffled.
And this is supposed to be fair on Wednesday, why is the focus on being fair to the team that BROKE THE RULES? What about the team that is now relegated?